The repository of one hard-boiled egg from the south suburbs of Milwaukee, Wisconsin (and the occassional guest-blogger). The ramblings within may or may not offend, shock and awe you, but they are what I (or my guest-bloggers) think.

Archive for the 'Thug Holloway' Category

December 29, 2010

Noted slumlord and abuser of fellow Milwaukee County Supervisors Lee Holloway is now acting Milwaukee County Executive, and he hasn’t disappointed those who expected new lows to be set. Despite the 30-day tag on his rule (or at least this stage of his rule), he wasn’t satisfied with just one judge administering the oath of office, inviting disgraced former County Executive F.(U.) Thomas Ament (the guy who signed into law the multi-million-dollar pension grab in 2000 that, when it finally came to light in 2002, cost him and several supervisors their jobs in recall elections) to the ceremony as an honored friend, or summarily firing the housing director (highly ironic since Holloway and his wife are facing legal action from the city of Milwaukee for numerous code violatoins on rental property they own), or laying out a massive tax-and-spend agenda that will by necessity take far more than either the 30 days he has before he has to name an “interim” County Exec (most-likely himself because he temporarily gave up the Board Chairmanship) or the 3 1/2 months before an elected replacement takes office (yes, he’s running). The latest is the revelation that he assembled a 32-member transition team.

Revisions/extensions (7:03 am 12/30/2010) – In the 5 o’clock hour, WISN-AM’s Jerry Bott and Ken Herrera pointed out that, in Holloway’s announcement that he was running for the remainder of the term, he used street putdowns on his potential challengers, conservative and ultra-liberal alike. Since nobody hit the poll yet, I simply added it to the poll.

I guess it’s time for a new NRE Poll…

What is the most outrageous aspect of Lee Holloway's assumption of the powers of Milwaukee County Executive?

Up to 1 answer(s) was/were allowed

Despite the city of Milwaukee taking legal action against him for numerous code violations at his rental properties, he fired the county housing director. (38%, 5 Vote(s))

He invited disgraced former executive F.(U.) Thomas Ament to the swearing-in ceremony as an honored friend. (31%, 4 Vote(s))

Despite the 30-day nature of the "acting" title, he requires 32 people in his transition office. (23%, 3 Vote(s))

He laid out a massive tax-and-spend agenda that will take far longer than the 30 days he has as acting exec or the 3 1/2 months before an elected replacement takes office. (8%, 1 Vote(s))

He needed not one, but two judges to administer the oath. (0%, 0 Vote(s))

He couldn't pass up using street putdowns of all his potential challengers. (0%, 0 Vote(s))

July 19, 2008

Guess I must have missed the memo that a certain local lefty put out about “thug” being limited to a certain race. Funny thing is, Merriam-Webster also missed this, as their definition of “thug” is “a brutal ruffian or assassin”. I don’t seem to see any mention of race here, but Lee Holloway’s repeated use of physical violence against other members of the County Board qualifies him as a ruffian and thus a thug.

Since that local lefty seems to think that “thug” only applies to African-American gangsters, I decided to put together a small gallery of those that cannot be declared “thugs” anymore, at least if we listened to that local lefty instead of the fine folks that put together Merriam-Webster:

April 7, 2006

A day after No-Ethics Milwaukee County Board Chair Lee “Thug” Holloway got 4 of his cronies to starve the County Ethics Board of funding into the continuing prosecution of a 90-count indictment against him in the Finance Committee on an allegiance-line vote, the chair and vice-chair of the Ethics Board, John C. Carter and Maria Monreal Cameron, resigned in protest. Charlie has a mid-morning interview with Carter, a mid-morning interview with supervisor Roger Quindel (whose violent replacement on the Finance Committee allowed Thug Holloway to get away with this), and the text of the resignation letters over at Sykes Writes. Also, Brian Fraley has the best collection of Thug Holloway news and commentary around.

However, there is one more shot to keep this investigation alive. Our friends at Citizens for Responsible Government have announced a rally and fundraiser to continue the investigation into Holloway to happen at 6 pm Wednesday, April 12, at Serb Hall (S. 51st St. and W. Oklahoma Ave. in Milwaukee). They will have additional details at a press conference on Sunday, April 9, outside the County Courthouse. I’ll keep you posted.

February 21, 2006

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports that ethically-challenged Milwaukee County Board chair Lee “Thug” Holloway is going to try to cajole 6 fellow supervisors into voting to deny additional funding to the Milwaukee County Ethics Board for the prosecution of a 90-count civil ethics violations complaint against him (to allow the Ethics Board to spend additional money from the county contingency fund, the County Board must approve the request by a 2/3rds vote). The gist of the complaint is that Holloway used his position as a supervisor to vote to approve contracts with the defunct Opportunities Industrialization Center of Greater Milwaukee (OIC) while receiving $165,000 from OIC for a property he owned that never changed hands, with many counts alleging that Holloway failed to disclose ownership of that and other properties. If convicted, Holloway can be removed from not only his chair position, but from office entirely.

I don’t often praise John Weishan, best known before this year as being ousted County Board chair Karen Ordinans little brother, but he has the money quote – “Trying to starve them for dollars so he personally can get a better settlement is another example of him misusing his office.”

February 20, 2006

Milwaukee County board chair Lee “Thug” Holloway, Milwaukee County corporation counsel William Domina, and the local chapter of the NAA(L)CP managed to intimidate 2 of the 10 supervisors seeking to replace Holloway as county board chair, Ryan McCue and Roger Quindel, into joining the Thug Nine to vote to “lay over” an attempted vote to elect a county board chair. Supposedly, the Board will take this up again if Peg Lautenschlager’s formal opinion on the matter matches her informal opinion that the board could proceed with the vote and potentially replace Holloway with a simple majority vote.

A message to those 2 cowards, as well as Richard Nykelwicz Jr, who once supported the idea of Thug Holloway stepping aside until the idea became serious: if Holloway is removed from his chairmanship, he will sue no matter how it is done. It won’t matter if the vote is 10-9, or 18-1 after a finding of cause. If you have learned nothing about Holloway, he will do anything and everything necessary to hang onto his power and unilaterally punish anyone who gets in his way. Just ask Orville Seymer and John Weishan.

In a blow against a strong Ethics Board, which has an open 90-item investigation against Thug Holloway, and against citizen involvement in watching government, Holloway cajoled 12 of his fellow board members into rejecting Don Uebelacker’s appointment to the Ethics Board. Uebelacker co-founded Citizens for Responsible Government, and had participated in a recall effort against Holloway (which likely would have forced his recusal in any vote on Holloway).

February 17, 2006

Peg Lautenschlager issued today a preliminary, informal opinion that, despite Milwaukee County corporation counsel William Domina’s informal opinion to the contrary, the Milwaukee County board could proceed with a special session to elect a replacement for county board chair Lee “Thug” Holloway (side note; he decided that discretion was the better part of valor and didn’t remove the 6 members of the Group of 10 that still had committee chairmanships/vice-chairmanships). The full opinion from WisPolitics is here. A few notes:

She bases her opinion on the facts that because the vote would be to remove Holloway from his board chairmanship rather than from the board itself and that the chair is elected by the board rather than appointed by anyone or elected by the voters, neither statute that says that a “for cause” 2/3rds vote is required to remove certain officials applies. Rather, she states that the statute that says that the board chair serves until the board elects a successor applies.

Her opinion is counter to a 1923 formal Attorney General’s office opinion on this subject, but that 1923 opinion “…inexplicably ignored the plain language of the statue providing for the election of the chairperson as well as its own recognition that the chairperson is elected.”

Due to the conflict in opinions, she will undertake a formal review to either clarify or reverse the 1923 AG’s opinion.

The Journal Sentinel reported in yesterday’s editions that 6 Milwaukee County board supervisors, Paul Cesarz, Dan Devine, Lynne De Bruin, James Schmitt, Joseph Rice and Ryan McCue, who were among 10 supervisors that asked for a special board session on Monday, February 20 to elect a new county board chair and were subsequently asked to resign by Monday, February 13 from various chair/vice chair positions by county board chair Lee Holloway, will not resign. In their letter to Holloway, they restated their position that Holloway step down as chair until his ethics case is settled, stated that they will continue to serve in their committee roles “faithfully and in the best interests of the citizens of Milwaukee County,… to whom we owe our allegiance,” and challenged Holloway to remove them if he disagreed with that statement.

The second part of the story deals with the legality of that election. After issuing a non-binding opinion that while the supervisors can hold the meeting, Holloway will continue to serve as chair unless 2/3rds of the supervisors vote to remove him for cause, Milwaukee County Corporation Counsel William Domina asked Wisconsin Attorney General Peg Lautenschlager for a second non-binding opinion. The group of 10 are contending that state statutes do not preclude removing a county board chair outside of the normal 4-year cycle with a simple majority.

This is going to get VERY ugly, and the ugliness will start tomorrow. I expect Holloway to remove all 10 supervisors from every committee they serve on, chosing to run county goverment with himself and the 8 supervisors that still support him.

February 9, 2006

Embattled, ethically-“challenged” (more like “lacking”) Milwaukee County Board Chair Lee Holloway isn’t taking the request of a new vote for county board chair lying down. He’s demanding that those of the 10-member “putsch” that filed paperwork to re-elect a board chair on Monday, February 20, that he hasn’t already removed from power to take a blood oath supporting him, resign any chairmanship/vice chairmanship on any committee they may be on, or face firing on Monday, February 13. The text of the form letter sent to Supervisors Cesarz (Personnel vice-chair), DeBruin (Parks, Energy, and Environment chair), Devine (Parks, Energy, and Environment vice-chair), McCue (Finance and Audit vice-chair), Rice (Judiciary, Safety and General Services vice-chair), and Schmitt (Personnel chair):

You recently signed a petition to the County Clerk to hold a special meeting of the County Board to elect a Chairman. In addition, I appointed you to serve as (insert position: e.g. Chairman of Parks)

Because of this situation, as well as the need for continued cooperation and communication between the County Board Chairman and the Chairs and Vice Chairs of standing committees, I am requesting that you inform me as to whether you can continue to work with me in your leadership capacity under the current circumstances at the County Board.

As you know, I believe I am exercising my constitutional rights of due process in defending myself against what I believe to be unfounded and unfair ethics charge.

You have even expressed your opinion that I have the right to do this.

I am now asking you to inform me whether you feel you can continue to work with me given this situation.

If you believe you cannot continue to work with me, I would request that you resign from your current position as (insert position) until due process has been completed.

I would like you to give this your careful thought and give me an answer by Monday, February 13.